George was just a cool guy and a boyhood friend and an ordinary guitar player.He wasn't there to mesh with Lennon's guitar style, since Lennon didn't even have one..He and Ringo were there to NOT overshadow John or Paul.

George was just a cool guy and a boyhood friend and an ordinary guitar player.He wasn't there to mesh with Lennon's guitar style, since Lennon didn't even have one..He and Ringo were there to NOT overshadow John or Paul.

What book or books was all that in?

Have you no natural resources of your own? Have they even robbed you of that?

That scene comes to mind when I read what you wrote. I've read several books on The Beatles but I feel I've read a lot of similar conjecture. The truth is these were four talented musicians who somehow came together and wrote and played music that has endured in popularity and style for nearly fifty years.

I have studied and play guitar and I know just how gifted John and George were at what they did. There was considerable style involved, evident in the videos I posted and evident in the catalog of music they created. I wouldn't call them the best guitarists but they were far better than ordinary.

I agree with you, Todd. But "needed" can be interpreted many ways. George and Ringo were most capable. As a band, all four realized their significance. The result is what we hear in their recordings.

I understand what your saying and where your coming from. The four of them together had some magical moments for sure, but lets not pretend it wasnt John and Pauls show here. Those two were the machine while the other two were just cogs that helped it along.

C'mon Hello Goodbye..Do I have to have it out of a book to make a comment? John stated over and over again that he wasn't all that much of a guitar player, but I agree with you that he was well above the norm and, even though I'm a keyboardist, I think John was one helluva rhythm guy from what I can tell...

George was repeatedly removed from lead from Beatle songs (even Taxman, his own) and was probably not even as good as Paul...His twangy guitar tone that he chose post Beatles probably had a lot to do with the fact that he couldn't get a record contract after 1977. (He was a SPECTACULAR songwriter through 69-74 though).

I'd like to romanticize this Beatle thing like everyone else, but I'm of the opinion that Brian Epstein could have replaced George and Ringo with just about any two British boys that could play and looked OK and the Beatles wouldn't have missed a beat once late 63-64 came around...

Being formerly in a band myself, though, I realize it's vastly important to have people you know and can trust in the band, but let's not get out of hand here. Lennon and McCartney's music would have carried them through even if they had Abbott and Costello backing them.

C'mon Hello Goodbye..Do I have to have it out of a book to make a comment? John stated over and over again that he wasn't all that much of a guitar player, but I agree with you that he was well above the norm and, even though I'm a keyboardist, I think John was one helluva rhythm guy from what I can tell...

George was repeatedly removed from lead from Beatle songs (even Taxman, his own) and was probably not even as good as Paul...His twangy guitar tone that he chose post Beatles probably had a lot to do with the fact that he couldn't get a record contract after 1977. (He was a SPECTACULAR songwriter through 69-74 though).

I'd like to romanticize this Beatle thing like everyone else, but I'm of the opinion that Brian Epstein could have replaced George and Ringo with just about any two British boys that could play and looked OK and the Beatles wouldn't have missed a beat once late 63-64 came around...

Being formerly in a band myself, though, I realize it's vastly important to have people you know and can trust in the band, but let's not get out of hand here. Lennon and McCartney's music would have carried them through even if they had Abbott and Costello backing them.

To me, it isn't that they replaced Pete, but how they replaced him and how they treated Pete and the Best family after 3 years of significant, loyal service. 3 years at The Casbah (2 with Pete in the band) where they helped The Beatles to go from a bum band nobody wanted into the most popular band in 2 different cities in 2 different countries with 2 different record deals in 2 different countries.

Then kicked to the curb like yersterday's trash. Not so much as even a kind word.

After listening to the DECCA tapes, the difference in Best and Ringo were quite glaring, in my opinion..I always felt Ringo had the perfect beat...But you would have thought the other three would have told Pete how they wanted the drums and maybe they did at times..I don't think any of them had a problem with him as they did with, say, Tommy Moore...In Spitz's book, he asserted that Best witnessed John/Paul/George's tiff with Ken Brown over 75 cents and Mona Best's insistence that Brown be paid even though he had to sit out with the flu, which the three Quarry Men walked out of the Casbah gig over. Spitz said Best developed a bit of a grudge against the three and it led to the indifference toward the three that eventually got him booted out and replaced with Ringo in 62.There are probably more important things to wonder about, but, to me, this stuff in interesting..LOL.

Logged

nimrod

In Spitz's book, he asserted that Best witnessed John/Paul/George's tiff with Ken Brown over 75 cents and Mona Best's insistence that Brown be paid even though he had to sit out with the flu, which the three Quarry Men walked out of the Casbah gig over. Spitz said Best developed a bit of a grudge against the three and it led to the indifference toward the three that eventually got him booted out and replaced with Ringo in 62.There are probably more important things to wonder about, but, to me, this stuff in interesting..LOL.

Id take these books with a pinch of salt mate, its only someones opinions, as someone said (cant remember who) to be fair theres always 3 versions of the truth, yours, mine and the absolute truth

nimrod

So, let's be like you and not read ANYTHING or believe ANYONE? There are ways to believe the ones to believe and not believe others. I don't think I want it your way.

your missing my point nada surf

Im not saying dont read books (Ive read plenty of Beatle books) Im saying dont take them as gospel truth, theyre just someones version of events, they may be wholly true or partly true, we'll never know.